IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSEC] draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets

"Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com> Mon, 20 August 2012 11:17 UTC

Return-Path: <gvandeve@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8493D21F85AD for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 04:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.473
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B29nJFCJR35V for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 04:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E4521F85AF for <opsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 04:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=gvandeve@cisco.com; l=2161; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1345461451; x=1346671051; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=+LLlU1wSkoB2hzuY9rTO3hdkfdCGUAsgu31mefu2OrI=; b=XtyfS0zxOiUvz31Ls72+vhdRtUnbQNxRyaruN5CI8746OGrDroAwcu3K BUwiGE4x7QiCR0vEiaLKXh/XzMxl3RsyXKEcqUclvHrQOIPZo+Krdca2p Ao+oLZZgR4aU0xa8LAjrNnObs9K8I1fd99z+9tm6gtxe/mS/yChhKELNO g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAGUcMlCtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABFukmBB4IgAQEBBBIBCh0/DAQCAQgOAwQBAQEKFAkHMhQJCAIEDgUIGodrmGSfWYsLGoYYYAOjfIFmgmGBYQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,796,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="113095671"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Aug 2012 11:17:31 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7KBHV3I015114 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:17:31 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com ([169.254.7.122]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:17:31 -0500
From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Thread-Topic: draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets
Thread-Index: Ac18T01ACwflm2isSWu2MfBRi7t6fAANIVgAACShttAADON0gAA+9s0AABHEXQAADiKR8A==
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:17:30 +0000
Message-ID: <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B24076F22@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com>
References: <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B240761BE@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com> <502E0D7C.3080504@si6networks.com> <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B24076A9B@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com> <502F59CF.5000801@si6networks.com> <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B24076BE6@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com> <50317796.9000405@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <50317796.9000405@si6networks.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.80.39]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19126.006
x-tm-as-result: No--45.592400-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:17:32 -0000

Sounds as a plan.

G/

-----Original Message-----
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fgont@si6networks.com] 
Sent: 20 August 2012 01:33
To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
Cc: opsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets

Hi, Gunter,

Regarding the track, there has been mixed opinions on what would be the appropriate track. However, my feeling is that this is to some extent a secondary issue (after all, the track can always be changed at a later time).

That said, the wg can be polled about the proper track during the call for adoption, and, if there's consensus on adoption of the document, but lack of consensus on a proper track, we can fall back to "Informational", and that's it. (i.e., the track is not "cast in stone").

P.S.: I will resubmit the I-D such that you can perform the call for adoption.

Thanks!

Best regards,
Fernando




On 08/19/2012 05:04 PM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
> Sounds reasonable if that is what you understood from current discussions in the list.
> 
> Ciao,
> G/
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fgont@si6networks.com]
> Sent: 18 August 2012 11:01
> To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
> Cc: opsec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets
> 
> Hi, Gunter,
> 
> On 08/18/2012 04:52 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
>> I would be inclined to go for your option #2 and see if there is 
>> rough consensus on the point of track.
> 
> Just double-checking: Since the track is going to be part of the poll, I may live the track "as is" (bcp), right? -- Thus, based on the outcome of the poll, I could change the track if necessary.
> 
> P.S.: Other than this, I have the next rev ready..
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Best regards,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
> 


--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email